web viewscreening tests done by educational psychologists are very costly to ... during my school...

Defining, Identifying and Supporting Dyslexia in a Primary School Classroom.

The provision for supporting pupils with dyslexia ‘is often lacking’

(Rose, 2009). This essay will provide a definition of dyslexia and go

into detail about ways of identifying dyslexia in a child and the

limitations of these approaches. It will then compare the practice of

two schools where I worked during my school experiences and link

with supporting children with dyslexia. This will be done to explain

where identification and support is often not good enough in

primary schools and to influence practice.

Tunmey and Greaney (2009, p.229) state that there is no

internationally agreed definition of Dyslexia or agreement on its

cause. However Rose’s (2009) definition is generally accepted

across the United Kingdom (Dyslexia Action, 2012).

Rose (2009) defines Dyslexia as a learning difficulty primarily

affecting the skills involved in accurate and fluent word reading and

spelling. This is a working definition providing ways to identify

learners with dyslexia and then offer interventions (Kelly and

Phillips, 2011).

Whereas The British Dyslexia Association (2010, p.1) define dyslexia

as a learning difference, a combination of strengths and weaknesses

which affects the learning process in reading, spelling, writing and

sometimes numeracy. Dyslexic learners may also have

accompanying weaknesses in short term memory, sequencing and

p. 1


the speed at which they process information. These are skills that

everyone needs if they are to learn effectively in a busy classroom.

This is a descriptive definition and concentrates on a set of

characteristics which are evident in dyslexic children (Kelly and

Phillips, 2011).

Different definitions go into differing detail and explanations of

dyslexia, depending on their perception of which is most significant.

Most, however, agree dyslexia affects reading and spelling. This is

where the first problem with identifying and supporting dyslexia lies.

My opinion is that for dyslexia to be easily identified and supported

there must be recognised international definitions of the disability,

without this definition, it is harder to identify and support.

It is widely accepted that the earlier dyslexia is identified the more

effective interventions are, and give the greatest chance of dyslexic

children ‘catching up’ with their peers (Ott, 1997; Rose, 2009;

Schnatschneider and Torgessen, 2004; Snowling 2013; Crombie and

Reid, 2009). The Code of Practice states the importance of early

identification, assessment and provision for any child who may have

special educational needs cannot be over-emphasised (DfES, 2001).

Research suggests there are many methods of identifying dyslexia.

Screening tests done by educational psychologists are very costly to

implement and there is a wide range of data and assessments

p. 2


available to teachers that are as effective (Ott, 1994; Snowling,

2013).

Fawcett and Nicholson (1996, cited by Ott, 1994, Crombie and Reid,

2009) devised tests for identifying whether children struggle with

areas associated with dyslexia. These tests were called the Dyslexia

Early Screening Test (DEST) for 4.5 to 6.5 year olds. The tests are

administered on entering school and aid early identification of

dyslexia ensuring support can be in place early. DEST involves a

series of subtests to identify signs of the causes of dyslexia and

indicate if a child is ‘at risk’ of future problems (Simpson, Everatt,

2005). If children are found to be ‘At Risk’ further testing from

educational psychologists is required. DEST was designed to be

used by teachers because it is cheap, quick and provides indicators

of dyslexia (Crombie and Reid, 2009, p.72). Simpson and Everatt

(2005) contest this by saying the tests need to be purchased at the

cost of the school. They also argue that tests administered to young

children struggle to give an accurate reading, and that evidence

testing was proven on older children rather than at 4.5 years of age.

I believe DEST tests offer a realistic indicator for dyslexia and that if

they predict literacy difficulties and can be administered to all

children then it is good for schools and the children.

Response to Intervention (RTI) is an American approach to

identifying dyslexia. All children are screened and children who fall

p. 3


below a cut off point are deemed to have a high probability of future

struggle in education, and are placed in an appropriate tier of the

system. RTI monitors progress through a programme of

interventions, providing an alternative to screening and assessment

for dyslexia. Progress is monitored at tier 1 in regular classes, tier

two involves small group based tutoring and tier 3 is 1:1 tailored

tutoring, with progress being monitored throughout with movement

between tiers (Snowling, 2013; Shapiro and Clemens, 2009;

Crombie and Reid, 2009, p.73). Blanket screening tests can be

unreliable (Rose 2009, p.43) and a problem with RTI is that it can

produce false positives and negatives, meaning children are placed

in the wrong tier (Shapiro and Clemens 2009). Snowling (2013, p.10)

suggests using RTI when children are identified to have reading

difficulties and their response to intervention is measured as to

whether they need further diagnosis. RTI should be carried out in

early years otherwise children will be identified no earlier than

traditional approaches (Crombie and Reid 2009, p.73).

RTI is appropriate for American school systems and due to

differences is not transferable for the UK. Rose (2009) advocated a

three wave teaching system (not tiers of intervention) for identifying

and supporting dyslexia in the UK, which is very similar to RTI. Wave

one requires high quality first teaching at all times which is the

cornerstone for helping dyslexic children (Rose, 2009, Reid, 2005),

where teachers adjust to suit the differing needs of their pupils

p. 4


(BDA, 2010), monitor responses to phonics and use differing rates of

progress as indicators for literacy difficulties. Reviews of progress

and further investigation of difficulties are essential. He also points

out that intervention should not wait until diagnosis, and that

intervention should be put in place when it is noticed that a child is

not responding at Wave one. Screening is done through

standardised reading and spelling tests to identify literacy

difficulties. Wave two involves a more experienced literacy teacher

and SENCO to assess the child’s difficulties and their RTI; Children

receive small group interventions to help with their difficulties and

their response is assessed. Should a child continue to fail at Wave 2

it may be acknowledged to parents that the child appears to have

‘dyslexia difficulties’ with no formal identification? Wave 3 involves

appropriately qualified teachers delivering an individualised

programme based on the child’s needs. Rose (2009) stated that the

best way to identify dyslexia is through monitoring progress, skills

assessment, statements of special educational needs and

monitoring the impact of interventions.

Problems associated with RTI can be applied to Rose’s approach and

therefore both will be evaluated with RTI being referenced. The

major problem with RTI is that it is valuable for prevention of

literacy difficulties for children, however, evidence suggests it

cannot be used for early diagnosis of dyslexia without further

testing (Reynolds and Shaywitz, 2009), and RTI may delay/prevent

p. 5


dyslexic children from the support they are entitled to whilst they

are failing which may affect their self-esteem (Glazzard, 2010). It

can be argued that if all children must be tested for RTI, then it is

possible to blanket test for dyslexia meaning that children are

identified specifically as dyslexic and receive targeted approaches

to give them support. It takes time for progress to be witnessed with

RTI and with pressure on teachers to get results this may prove to

be a stumbling block without a diagnosis of dyslexia (Shapiro and

Clemens 2009). I believe these approaches rely heavily on the Wave

(tier) one teaching being of high quality. If there is a failure at Wave

one, this leads to unnecessary increase of numbers at Waves two

and three, meaning that children who do not have SEN are moved

into Wave two unnecessarily. RTI works in supporting dyslexia after

it has been identified, however, it is very reliant on each stage being

done correctly and on teachers being involved and understanding

the needs of their pupils, which should be expected but is not

always the case in practice. Snowling (2013, p. 11) suggests that

teacher assessment in schools, using data for RTI, is an effective

method for identifying dyslexia.

It is my belief that no one method alone is sufficient in identifying

dyslexia, Hale et al (2010) suggest that there is a need for another

method in identification of learning difficulties from RTI. It is my

belief that an RTI model combined with tests is the best method for

identification and support of dyslexia. Wave one is the most obvious

p. 6


initial identification pool with all children being in school. However,

after this my beliefs differ from a traditional RTI approach. I believe

all children should be tested for dyslexia at wave one and those who

appear to exhibit ‘at risk’ signs must be placed in the appropriate

level for their needs and have further testing. Children going

straight into wave two will not necessarily benefit or improve from

wave two interventions and this is delaying assistance and is

therefore the major short fall of RTI. The DEST provides a more

concrete identification of needs that can be tailored to children at

Wave three. Whereas an RTI model can be implemented and benefit

many children, it is my belief that we can help the identification of

dyslexia by implementing other methods in addition.

Other ways that help to identify dyslexia are Schools and parents

working together, which is essential (Rose, 2009; Reid, 2009).

Teachers looking for children in their class exhibiting dyslexia

characteristics will aid in dyslexia identification. The Year 1 Phonics

screening test can be used as an indicator of dyslexia (Dyslexia

Action, 2012), due to phonological difficulties associated with

dyslexia. Progress monitoring is the most essential way of

identifying dyslexia (Ott, 1997; Rose, 2009; Schnatschneider and

Torgessen, 2004; Snowling 2013; Crombie and Reid, 2009). EYFS

assessment can be used to identify children at risk of educational

difficulties (Snowling, 2013, p.11), which is backed up by Rose

(2009, p.44). Teachers should raise concerns about a child with

p. 7


more experienced teachers or their SENCO when they believe a

child may have dyslexia. These, however, must be done alongside

interventions and assessments to effectively aid in the identification

and support of dyslexia.

None of these ways to identify Dyslexia provide an actual diagnosis;

only psychologists and specialist dyslexia teachers with a practising

certificate can provide diagnosis (Rose, p.53). Before that teachers

can only say they exhibit dyslexic tendencies. These specialists are

called in if high quality teaching and interventions are not effective.

However when a child is labelled ‘at risk’ of dyslexia there should

not be a delay in putting help in place; this prevents further

affecting pupils’ self-esteem (Rose, 2009, p.2; Snowling, 2013,

p.12).

During my school placement I interviewed the SENCO’s from two

schools about their approach to dyslexia. School A does not focus on

diagnosing dyslexia specifically; the school does not like to label

children and feel that it is unfair to do so. Norwich (2009, p.186)

supports this notion by stating that Special Education Needs (SEN) is

best supported and assisted by identifying the needs of the child

rather than labelling them as dyslexic. This means that stating a

child is dyslexic does nothing for them, teachers need to address

what their problems are and target assistance based on this.

Macdonald (2009, p.36) contradicts this by saying that dyslexia

p. 8


diagnosis improves self-esteem and can give increased confidence.

He also explains that children may have already been labelled as

lazy, stupid or disruptive and diagnosis can end this. Glazzard

(2010, p.63) elaborates by saying that the label ‘dyslexia’

contributes significantly to pupils’ self-esteem, gives them

ownership of the label and helps to create a positive self-image.

School B, however, diagnose only when they feel it will benefit the

child. Lauchlan and Boyle (2007) back this approach, by stating that

the label of dyslexia can lead to increased funding streams and

makes communicating problems easier for professionals.

It is my opinion that the label is more beneficial to a child because it

gives them an idea of why they struggle with their work, and opens

up their rights to funding and support and empowers the child to

achieve. I feel that the label children often receive of being lazy,

stupid or disruptive (Macdonald, 2009) is far more detrimental to

children’s self-esteem than dyslexia; the label in my opinion benefits

the child.

Both schools buy in services when children exhibit dyslexic

characteristics, the services for school A putting strategies in place

whereas school B’s services do a comprehensive assessment in

reading, writing and spelling and then provide a dyslexic portfolio

for assisting class teachers with the pupil in class. This may suggest

that school B is offering more support for their teachers, however,

p. 9


school A put strategies in place with the agencies support and in

addition to this up skill staff through INSET ensuring high quality

Wave One teaching (Rose, 2009), as well as training for all staff

involved with children exhibiting dyslexic tendencies. In addition

School A provides assistance to small groups of SEN children,

though this approach may be delaying or preventing dyslexic

children from having the specific support they require (Reynolds and

Shaywitz, 2009).

School B uses technology such as I-pad apps and it buys laptops if

needed for children to be able to produce better quality work.

School B aims to increase children’s typing speed which the BDA

says increases quality and quantity of work, thereby, taking away

the problems of speed and handwriting (2013), and have apps for

children to dictate their work so as to not need to write, taking away

the stress and fear of failure associated with writing and aids editing

by hearing mistakes (Percival, 2013). Technology is a tool that can

be used in the classroom to aid, support and overcome difficulties

and barriers to learning for dyslexic children and can mean a

lifetime of success in writing (BDA, 2013; Drysdale, 2009; Crivelli,

2013, cited in Percival, 2013; Ott, 2007). There is a vast amount of

technology available to support dyslexia (Peer and Reid, 2005) and

children can be taught to use ICT to increase their performance and

enhance their creativity (Ott, 2007). By using different programs

and removing previous barriers children then have confidence to

p. 10


produce better work which creates independent learners, as when

dyslexic children have the tools necessary they can work

independently (Onions, 2013, cited in Percival, 2013). This is an

area where school A is lacking and in my opinion needs to look into

assisting its children who are dyslexic, because children who are not

motivated by traditional teaching methods (i.e. dyslexic children)

often benefit from assistive technology (Nicolson, Fawcett and

Nicolson, 2000, p.203).

School A lower the teacher pupil ratios by employing two teaching

assistants (TA’s) in classes with SEN children, one who works with

the whole class and one to assist the SEN children. However,

dyslexic students see working exclusively with a TA as one of the

worst practices in schools. Webster (2014) also comments that

working with TA’s too much also means that these children miss out

on quality time with the teacher affecting their education, which

leads to children becoming too reliant on the TA. Therefore, it is

good for school A to use teaching assistants, they must also be

aware of the impact on having them working too much with SEN

children. School B could improve provision by using TA’s. Both

schools offer help with spelling and using mnemonics and tutoring,

which is seen as one of the main problems with dyslexia. School A

provides professional development, which focuses on addressing

gaps in staff knowledge on dyslexia (Bagri, 2014; Rose, 2009, p.82).

p. 11


School A has three children exhibiting dyslexia tendencies whereas

School B state they have one child who is dyslexic who they are

seeking a diagnosis, but have no children with dyslexic tendencies.

Approximately 10% of the population are dyslexic (British Dyslexia

Association, 2014) a school the size of School A there would be

approximately 80 pupils with Dyslexia to some degree and there

would be roughly 40 pupils with dyslexia to some degree in School

B. However it is acknowledged that dyslexia occurs on a continuum

and that many children have low level problems, or simply have

learnt to cope (Gallagher, Frith and Snowling, 2000). With that being

said both schools are far below the ten per cent level, meaning the

likelihood is that there are many dyslexic children going unnoticed,

which is something that needs to be addressed in their SEN

practice.

Both school A and B offer the assistance to dyslexic children.

However, school A refusing to diagnose can leave some children at

a disadvantage when heading into secondary school, School B’s

diagnosing when necessary helps a child by giving them future

opportunities and more benefits than just the support they required

at the time.

Other ways teachers can support dyslexia in class, is by Multi-

Sensory teaching involving visual, auditory, kinaesthetic and tactile

senses (the eyes, ears, speech and fingers) (Ott, 1994, p.65).

p. 12


Dyslexic pupils respond best to structured teaching, being in an

environment where their teacher supports and understands their

needs (Reid, 2005; Snowling, 2013; Johnson, 2004) and need to be

encouraged to achieve independence (Reid, 2005 p.144). Dyslexic

pupils should receive Targeted Phonological skills with reading

interventions, by developing decoding skills proved to be the best

method for intervention (Snowling, 2013, p.12). Teaching

programmes should target: attention, listening, spoken language,

fine motor skills, handwriting and memory (Townsend, 2000, cited in

Reid, 2005). Overlearning by using systematic repetition in order for

new knowledge and skills to become automatic, working with

dyslexic children between lessons helps them learn (Rose, 2009,

p.90). No intervention works for all children and it is therefore

essential to tailor intervention children’s specific needs (Snowling,

2013, p.12; Reid, 2005).

It is clear from research that it is vital to identifying dyslexia early at

schools and that there are many different methods of identifying it.

However, despite it being so important for it to be identified, there is

a lack in provision of schools. This paper shows schools need to do

more to identify dyslexia and then give appropriate interventions.

RTI, is a good starting point, however leaves dyslexic children

lacking the appropriate provision at waves one and two without

identification. It is not appropriate to simply wait to see how children

respond before extra support is given as this will leave children

p. 13


without specific support they require (Reynolds and Shaywitz,

2009). Schools must identify dyslexia at the earliest possibility, if

they are unhappy with ‘labelling’ the child they must identify

children as potentially dyslexic and put coping strategies in place

(Stansfield, 2014), this therefore prevents a dyslexic child falling

behind their peers because children who fall behind early in their

school career tend to fall further behind over time (Siegel, 2014). My

conclusion therefore, is that schools need multiple methods to

identify dyslexia, and when a child is identified, they need to be

receiving appropriate support for their problems in class at wave

one and through interventions at waves two and three.

Therefore a whole school approach to dyslexia is required. A school

culture where failure is not acceptable, and that pupils cannot be

allowed to leave without appropriate basic skills; which means

pupils are encouraged to believe they can be the best (BDA, 2010).

School wide Monitoring and evaluation of teaching/ interventions

and looking at what is being done to support dyslexic children

(Rose, 2009, p.98) is essential. Schools must have access to a

trained dyslexic teacher and a teacher with advanced skills of

teaching literacy either in an alliance or on staff (Rose, 2009).

Schools should establish a policy framework for the school by

implementing whole-school screening and monitoring for dyslexia

(Reid, 2005, p.142) through DEST and RTI. Teachers and staff should

p. 14


be aware of difficulties associated with dyslexia (Rose, 2009, p.82;

BDA, 2010).

p. 15


Bibliography

Aberdeen City Council (ACC). (2011) Dyslexia Aberdeen City Council Dyslexia Practice Guidelines. Available at: http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/web/files/SchoolsColleges/dyslexia_guidlines.pdf (Accessed 26 January 2014).

Australian Dyslexia Association. (2014). Identifying Dyslexia. Available at: http://dyslexiaassociation.org.au/index.php?page=identifying-dyslexia (Accessed 19 January 2014).

Australian Dyslexia Association. (2014). Could it be Dyslexia? Available at: http://dyslexiaassociation.org.au/index.php?page=could-it-be-dyslexia-2 (Accessed 19 January 2014).

Bagri, S. (2014) Conversation with William Seabrook, 23 January.

British Dyslexia Association. (BDA) (2010) Dyslexia Friendly Schools Pack for England. Available at: http://www.bdadyslexia.org.uk/files/dfs_pack_English.pdf (Accessed: 14 January 2014)

British Dyslexia Association (BDA).(ND) Dyslexia Style Guide. Available at: http://www.bdadyslexia.org.uk/about-dyslexia/further-information/dyslexia-style-guide.html (Accessed: 26 January 2014).

British Dyslexia Association (BDA). (2013) Using Technology to Support Dyslexic pupils. Available at: http://www.bdadyslexia.org.uk/files/Technology-for-Literacy-2013.pdf (accessed: 19 January 2014).

Broomfield, H. and Combley, M. (2000) Overcoming Dyslexia: A Practical Handbook for the Classroom. London: Whur Publishers Ltd.

Crombie, M. and Reid, G. (2009) ‘The role of early identification: Models from research to practice’, in Reid, G (ed.) The Routledge Companion to Dyslexia. Oxon: Routledge, PP.71-79.

Davis, R.D. (1992) 37 Common Characteristics of Dyslexia. Available at: http://www.dyslexia.com/library/symptoms.htm (Accessed: 29 January, 2014)

Department for Education and Skills (DfES). (2001)Special Educational Needs Code of Practice. Available at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130401151715/https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/0581-2001-SEN-CodeofPractice.pdf (Accessed: 29 January 2014).

p. 16


Drysdale, J. (2009) ‘Overcoming the barriers to literacy’, in Reid, G (ed.) The Routledge Companion to Dyslexia. Oxon: Routledge, PP.236-247.

Dyslexia Action. (2012) Dyslexia Still Matters. Egham: Dyslexia Institute Limited.

Everatt, J. and Reid, G. (2009) ‘Dyslexia: An overview of recent research’, in Reid, G (ed.) The Routledge Companion to Dyslexia. Oxon: Routledge, PP.3- 21.

Gallagher, A. Frith, U. and Snowling, M. (2000) ‘Precursors of literacy delay among children at genetic risk of dyslexia’, Journal of Child Psychology and psychiatry, 41 (2), pp.203-213.

Glazzard, J. (2010) ‘Impact of dyslexia on pupil’s self-esteem’, British Journal of Learning Support, 25 (2), pp.63-69.

Hale, J. (2010) ‘Critical issues in Response-to- intervention, comprehensive evaluation, and specific learning disabilities identification and intervention: An expert white paper’, Learning Disability Quarterly, 33 (1), pp.223-236.

Hope, K. (ND) How teachers can accommodate the dyslexic student. Available at: http://www.dyslexiavictoriaonline.com/howtecanacdy.html (accessed, 26 January 2014).

Inclusive technology. (2014) ICT and Specific learning disibilities and or dyslexia, Available at: http://www.inclusive.co.uk/articles/ict-and-specific-learning-difficulties-and-or-dyslexia-a216 (accessed: 1 February 2014).

Johnson, M. (2004) ‘Dyslexia- Friendly teaching’, in in Thomson, M. (ed.) Dyslexia- Perspectives for Classroom Practitioners. Glasgow: Bell & Bain Ltd, pp.9-14.

Kaminski, J. (2012) 5 Early Warning Signs to Identifying Dyslexia. Available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpvaVje6oCk (Accessed: 19 January 2014).

Kelly, K. and Phillips, S. (2011) Teaching Literacy to Learners with Dyslexia A Multi-sensory Approach. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Lauchlan, F. and Boyle, C. (2007) ‘Is the use of labels in special education helpful?’, Support For Learning, 22 (1), pp.36-42.

p. 17


Lyytinen, H. Ronimu, M. Alanko, A. Poikkeus, AM. And Taanila, M. (2007) ‘Early Identification of dyslexia and the use of computer game-based practice to support reading acquisition’, Nordic Psychology, 59 (2), pp.109- 126.

Macdonald, S. (2009) Towards a Sociology of Dyslexia. London: VDM Publishing.

Norwich, B. (2009) ‘Dyslexia and inclusive education’, , in Reid, G (ed.) The Routledge Companion to Dyslexia. Oxon: Routledge, pp.177-192.

Ott, P. (1997) How to Detect and Manage Dyslexia: A reference and Resource Manual. Oxford: Heinemann Educational Publishers.

Ott, P. (2007) Teaching Children with Dyslexia a Practical Guide. Oxon: Routledge.

Peer, L. (2004) ‘Success for all- dyslexia-friendly schools’, in Thomson, M. (ed.) Dyslexia- Perspectives for Classroom Practitioners. Glasgow: Bell & Bain Ltd, pp.3-8.

Peer, L. (2009) ‘Dyslexia and glue ear: a stick educational problem’, in Reid, G (ed.) The Routledge Companion to Dyslexia. Oxon: Routledge, pp.33-42.

Peer, L. and Reid, G. (2005) Introduction to Dyslexia, London: David Fulton Publishers Ltd.

Percival, S. (2013) ‘Assistive tools’, Nasen Special, March 2013, p.45.

Reid, G. (2005) ‘Dyslexia’, Lewis, A. and Norwich, B. (eds.) Special Teaching for Special Children? a pedagogies for inclusion, Berkshire: Open University Press, pp.138-149.

Reynolds, C. and Shaywitz, S. (2009) ‘Response to Intervention: ready or not? Or, from wait-to-fail to watch-them-fail, School Psychology Quarterly, 24 (2), pp. 1-19.

Rose, J. (2009) Identifying and Teaching Children and Young People with Dyslexia and Learning Difficulties. Available at: http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/14790/1/00659-2009DOM-EN.pdf (Accessed: 14 January 2014).

Shapiro, E. (2009) ‘A conceptual model for evaluating system effects of response to intervention’, Assessment for Effective Intervention, 35 (2), pp.3-16.

p. 18


Siegel, l. (2014) ‘ Early indentification and intervention to prevent reading failure’, Carroll, J. and Saunders, K. (eds) The Dyslexia Handbook 2014, Bracknell: The British Dyslexia Association, pp.107-112.

Simpson, J. and Everatt, J. (2005) ‘Reception Class predictors of literacy skills’, British Journal of Educational Psycholody, 75, pp.171-188.

Singleton, C. (2009) ‘visual stress and Dyslexia’, in Reid, G (ed.) The Routledge Companion to Dyslexia. Oxon: Routledge, PP.43-57.

Stansfield, J. (2014) ‘ Early indentification’, Llewellyn-Jones, D. Carroll, J. and Saunders, K. (eds) The Dyslexia Handbook 2014, Bracknell: The British Dyslexia Association, pp.107-112.

Snowling, M. (2013) ‘Early identification and interventions for dyslexia: a contempory view’, Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 13 (1), pp.7-14.

Schatschneider,C. and Torgesen, J. (2004) ‘Using Our Current Understanding of Dyslexia to Support Early Identification and Intervention’, Journal of Child Neurology, 19 (10), pp.759-765.

The Academic Group. (2012) Teaching the Dyslexic Child. Available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkLjGlCfLRw (Accessed 21 January, 2014).

Tunmer, W. and Greaney, K. (2009) ‘Defining Dyslexia’, Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43(3), pp.229-243.

Webster, R. (2014) ‘Relying on teaching assistant support for SEN students is a false economy’ The Guardian (Teacher Network), 17 April.

p. 19

web viewscreening tests done by educational psychologists are very costly to ... during my school...

Documents